Water of the bong
- Auteur de la discussion faithless
- Date de début
buffachino
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 7/6/07
- Messages
- 1 452
God returns, with another exiting and aggressive expression of his personal expertise.
Well, let me both reiterate and shed some personal light on what you have uncovered.
It seems that you give joints or small pipes the image of perfection when it comes to smoking.
If you are correct, and while smoking a joint, a quantity of tars dissipate into the air to the extent of filtering the inhaled smoke more than a bong; one would have to watch the end burn without inhaling at all in order to filter out any substantial amount of oils and tars for it to be considered more effective and less damaging than smoking a bong.
Again, the tars and oils released from the smouldering tip of a joint are still drawn into the joint itself and accumulate more profusely as you smoke it. Thus, wouldn’t the quality of the smoke and cannabis be consistently degraded as more and more tars are deposited onto the contents of the joint as you smoke? I find it hard to imagine that the burning end of a joint removes consecutively more of the nasty by-products of combustion while you smoke, somehow compensating for your health, while the roach does better at cleaning the inhaled substance than water.
And having to smoke more joints more frequently to compensate for the wane in effectiveness would be just as if not more damaging as smoking through a device such as a bong, wouldn’t it?
This is were gradualism steps in; just because smoking a bong may seem more damaging in the short term, compared with results derived from smoking tobacco, relatively, smoking more joints will eventually degrade your respiratory health much quicker because of the frequency, method and amount inhaled.
Were talking about smoking, not vaporising; there is no question that vapour is better.
[quote:k4mbgsps]I said: “Smoking fewer and larger inhalations does less damage to ones respiratory system than smaller, shallow inhalations more frequently.
Well, let me both reiterate and shed some personal light on what you have uncovered.
It seems that you give joints or small pipes the image of perfection when it comes to smoking.
If you are correct, and while smoking a joint, a quantity of tars dissipate into the air to the extent of filtering the inhaled smoke more than a bong; one would have to watch the end burn without inhaling at all in order to filter out any substantial amount of oils and tars for it to be considered more effective and less damaging than smoking a bong.
Again, the tars and oils released from the smouldering tip of a joint are still drawn into the joint itself and accumulate more profusely as you smoke it. Thus, wouldn’t the quality of the smoke and cannabis be consistently degraded as more and more tars are deposited onto the contents of the joint as you smoke? I find it hard to imagine that the burning end of a joint removes consecutively more of the nasty by-products of combustion while you smoke, somehow compensating for your health, while the roach does better at cleaning the inhaled substance than water.
And having to smoke more joints more frequently to compensate for the wane in effectiveness would be just as if not more damaging as smoking through a device such as a bong, wouldn’t it?
This is were gradualism steps in; just because smoking a bong may seem more damaging in the short term, compared with results derived from smoking tobacco, relatively, smoking more joints will eventually degrade your respiratory health much quicker because of the frequency, method and amount inhaled.
Were talking about smoking, not vaporising; there is no question that vapour is better.
[quote:k4mbgsps]I said: “Smoking fewer and larger inhalations does less damage to ones respiratory system than smaller, shallow inhalations more frequently.
When it comes to smoking methods I personally prefer a bong. Its smoke is cool and does not cause pain in the throat.
I understand that we're currently trying to explore smoking MJ from a scientific point of view. The more you know the better it is, that's undisputable. But keep in mind however that one smokes MJ for pleasure. It is not our duty or pure curiosity that makes us smoke, right? And since we do it for pleasure, the best way to smoke must be the one you find most comfortable. It's a matter of the personal preference, I think.
I understand that we're currently trying to explore smoking MJ from a scientific point of view. The more you know the better it is, that's undisputable. But keep in mind however that one smokes MJ for pleasure. It is not our duty or pure curiosity that makes us smoke, right? And since we do it for pleasure, the best way to smoke must be the one you find most comfortable. It's a matter of the personal preference, I think.
GOD
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14/1/06
- Messages
- 14 944
" expression of his personal expertise. "
No , the scientific studys dont come from me , they come from neutral , objective , qualifyed scientists.
" personal light on what you have uncovered."
Yes , personal . No, light , and it wasnt just me that came to the obvious conclusions that i have come to , it was several groups of scientists in at least ithree studys . Plus the 5000 members of MAPS that have acepted that and not argued against obvious facts and basic chemistry .
"It seems that you give joints or small pipes the image of perfection when it comes to smoking."
No . The best way to extract THC oils by heating is gently = by heating as little as posible = vaporisation . But to get things straight ........ THC is never smoked , its always vaporised . The diference between what is called vaporisation and smoking is the temperature of the process and weather one breaths in parts of all the products of burning the substance or just distills the THC and the things that vaporise below the temperature of THC and breathes that in .
"If you are correct,"
No , science is correct .
I am not prepaired to go into most of your asumptions of what i am saying or what you think is happening when someone smokes a bong , i want to stay with undenyable facts and not speculate on things that you asume that i asume , or your or my interpretation of those asumptions .
It can not be denyed that a bong burns the contents much faster and much hotter than some other methods therby destroying more of the THC , and that the smoker inhales more mixed gasses , tars and all the other things that the substance contains . It is well known that the smoke from cicaretts that comes of the end of a cigaret is more dangerous than that wich the smoker nhales through the cigaret . The same is true for cannabis even though cannabis contains different chemicals , the toxic burning byproducts / gasses and other things are basicaly the same .
Water cools the smoke and removes lots of the ingredients of it , it doesnt selectivly remove the bad things and not the good things , it removes parts of all of them .
"And having to smoke more joints more frequently to compensate for the wane in effectiveness would be just as if not more damaging as smoking through a device such as a bong, wouldn’t it? "
Who has to smoke more joints , who has to compensate for what and what wane in what efectiveness ? , again that whole sentance is a row of your asumptions . To experience the effects of cannabis pure you have to vaporise it or eat it . The diferences between that and smoking it are the amounts of poisons one inhales and the damage the smoke does to a person . Personaly i didnt realy like vaporising cannabis , the effect for me was to empty . But i admit that the only difference in the effects must be the effects of poisonous gasses , and other burning products . My personal choice was a good pure pipe with a finely powdered product in a bowl about 1 mm deep and 1 to 1.5 cms wide smoked with as small a flame as posible from one side to another . I can only tell you what i have experienced , that everytime i have had this argument with bong smokers and then taught them how to smoke a pure pipe optimaly , that i have always beamed them with about 1/3 of the amount that they put in a single bong head . I am hoping that Psychonuts.com sometime organises a party so that i can demonstrate what i say . The proof is in the pudding .
" get a nice bong with multiple chambers"
The bigger the surface area of your extraction aperatus the more THC condenses on it before entering the lungs .
As to the rest , yes , personal choice is personal choice , but science is science and the facts remain the same , smoking a bong is less efective for getting high , more damaging to a persons health and much more expensive than some other methods . Again , there is a diference between being high and sufering from damage to your health and thinking that that is being high .
The original questions were :-
"I would like to know if yes or no, the water of the bong purifies the smoke? "
Yes it does , but it also removes large quantitys of the THC . The water isnt selective about what it removes .
"It makes it more smooth and cool, but is the smoke less nocive? "
The suck contains less smoke and the smoke contains less THC than if you smoke the bong without water .
" does the water contain some of the nocive components? "
Yes . lots of it .
No , the scientific studys dont come from me , they come from neutral , objective , qualifyed scientists.
" personal light on what you have uncovered."
Yes , personal . No, light , and it wasnt just me that came to the obvious conclusions that i have come to , it was several groups of scientists in at least ithree studys . Plus the 5000 members of MAPS that have acepted that and not argued against obvious facts and basic chemistry .
"It seems that you give joints or small pipes the image of perfection when it comes to smoking."
No . The best way to extract THC oils by heating is gently = by heating as little as posible = vaporisation . But to get things straight ........ THC is never smoked , its always vaporised . The diference between what is called vaporisation and smoking is the temperature of the process and weather one breaths in parts of all the products of burning the substance or just distills the THC and the things that vaporise below the temperature of THC and breathes that in .
"If you are correct,"
No , science is correct .
I am not prepaired to go into most of your asumptions of what i am saying or what you think is happening when someone smokes a bong , i want to stay with undenyable facts and not speculate on things that you asume that i asume , or your or my interpretation of those asumptions .
It can not be denyed that a bong burns the contents much faster and much hotter than some other methods therby destroying more of the THC , and that the smoker inhales more mixed gasses , tars and all the other things that the substance contains . It is well known that the smoke from cicaretts that comes of the end of a cigaret is more dangerous than that wich the smoker nhales through the cigaret . The same is true for cannabis even though cannabis contains different chemicals , the toxic burning byproducts / gasses and other things are basicaly the same .
Water cools the smoke and removes lots of the ingredients of it , it doesnt selectivly remove the bad things and not the good things , it removes parts of all of them .
"And having to smoke more joints more frequently to compensate for the wane in effectiveness would be just as if not more damaging as smoking through a device such as a bong, wouldn’t it? "
Who has to smoke more joints , who has to compensate for what and what wane in what efectiveness ? , again that whole sentance is a row of your asumptions . To experience the effects of cannabis pure you have to vaporise it or eat it . The diferences between that and smoking it are the amounts of poisons one inhales and the damage the smoke does to a person . Personaly i didnt realy like vaporising cannabis , the effect for me was to empty . But i admit that the only difference in the effects must be the effects of poisonous gasses , and other burning products . My personal choice was a good pure pipe with a finely powdered product in a bowl about 1 mm deep and 1 to 1.5 cms wide smoked with as small a flame as posible from one side to another . I can only tell you what i have experienced , that everytime i have had this argument with bong smokers and then taught them how to smoke a pure pipe optimaly , that i have always beamed them with about 1/3 of the amount that they put in a single bong head . I am hoping that Psychonuts.com sometime organises a party so that i can demonstrate what i say . The proof is in the pudding .
" get a nice bong with multiple chambers"
The bigger the surface area of your extraction aperatus the more THC condenses on it before entering the lungs .
As to the rest , yes , personal choice is personal choice , but science is science and the facts remain the same , smoking a bong is less efective for getting high , more damaging to a persons health and much more expensive than some other methods . Again , there is a diference between being high and sufering from damage to your health and thinking that that is being high .
The original questions were :-
"I would like to know if yes or no, the water of the bong purifies the smoke? "
Yes it does , but it also removes large quantitys of the THC . The water isnt selective about what it removes .
"It makes it more smooth and cool, but is the smoke less nocive? "
The suck contains less smoke and the smoke contains less THC than if you smoke the bong without water .
" does the water contain some of the nocive components? "
Yes . lots of it .
faithless
Elfe Mécanique
- Inscrit
- 3/8/07
- Messages
- 412
Thank you GOD for all those explanations. They're realy usefull.
Anyway, there's still one point on which I don't agree (is that sentence correct? if not, could someone correct it please?
) :
you say smoking a bong is less effective than a joint.. In a bong I put half the weed I put in a joint, and the hit of the bong really BLOWS me. I mean I am sent into another dimension in 30 seconds. The joint doesn't get me as stoned as the bong..
You say there's a difference between getting high and being stoned (or I don't know the word you employed). Could you explain that please?
I also have heard that the amount of THC inhaled during smoking isn't the same if you use a joint, a bong or a vaporizer..
That friend told me it goes like that:
joint = 30% of weed
bong = 60%
vapo = 100%
(These are not correct, I don't remember what he told me, but it was to show you that joint < bong)
What do you say about that? Was my friend wrong?
And so, not having the money for buying a vapo, what way should I smoke my weed? A pipe is really better that a joint? plus if I understood correctly (which is not quite sure considering my poor level in english), I'm going to need a lighter as weak as possible..
Thank you again for your very complete posts, and excuse again my bad english
Anyway, there's still one point on which I don't agree (is that sentence correct? if not, could someone correct it please?
) :you say smoking a bong is less effective than a joint.. In a bong I put half the weed I put in a joint, and the hit of the bong really BLOWS me. I mean I am sent into another dimension in 30 seconds. The joint doesn't get me as stoned as the bong..
You say there's a difference between getting high and being stoned (or I don't know the word you employed). Could you explain that please?
I also have heard that the amount of THC inhaled during smoking isn't the same if you use a joint, a bong or a vaporizer..
That friend told me it goes like that:
joint = 30% of weed
bong = 60%
vapo = 100%
(These are not correct, I don't remember what he told me, but it was to show you that joint < bong)
What do you say about that? Was my friend wrong?
And so, not having the money for buying a vapo, what way should I smoke my weed? A pipe is really better that a joint? plus if I understood correctly (which is not quite sure considering my poor level in english), I'm going to need a lighter as weak as possible..
Thank you again for your very complete posts, and excuse again my bad english
buffachino
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 7/6/07
- Messages
- 1 452
God yes, I agree.
I didn’t wish to dispute the science that you are using to explain your point, and I agree with it.
But I was talking about smoking methods; about manner, amount and frequency smoked compared to damage, not different apparatus compared to damage.
The device used makes some, but little, difference to the smoker, because it is still smoke. How one utilises specific methods has a larger degree of impact on the smokers health that what they used to smoke.
But either way, I hope to have some honey oil to vaporise very soon!
Peace.
I didn’t wish to dispute the science that you are using to explain your point, and I agree with it.
But I was talking about smoking methods; about manner, amount and frequency smoked compared to damage, not different apparatus compared to damage.
The device used makes some, but little, difference to the smoker, because it is still smoke. How one utilises specific methods has a larger degree of impact on the smokers health that what they used to smoke.
But either way, I hope to have some honey oil to vaporise very soon!
Peace.
Interesting read... all i know for me is that when i use a glass pipe it takes a fraction of the amount of weed it takes to get me high were I to use a joint or bong. And it tends to feel much more "high" also (in the almost psychedelic sense).
Anyways generally these days i prefer to fry a bit of bud then eat it, just harder to gauge because you don't know how it is going to affect you until 2-3 hours later
Anyways generally these days i prefer to fry a bit of bud then eat it, just harder to gauge because you don't know how it is going to affect you until 2-3 hours later
tryptonaut
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 20/11/04
- Messages
- 3 440
I tend to agree with god on the matter. Just from personal experience with bong smoke, I actually feel that it must be really unhealthy to shoot an ungodly amount of thick smoke down in the deepest regions of your lungs. When I was smoking a bong daily I always had a cough, like some 60 year old chain-smoker.
And by the way why do people always say ice in a bong makes it taste so smooth? Every time I tried an ice bong (just ice, or ice in the water or with a special bong with ice-holder) the smoke was really harsh and tasted like shit (literally like cold smoke...) but maybe that was because we were always smoking with some tobacco in the mix.
And by the way why do people always say ice in a bong makes it taste so smooth? Every time I tried an ice bong (just ice, or ice in the water or with a special bong with ice-holder) the smoke was really harsh and tasted like shit (literally like cold smoke...) but maybe that was because we were always smoking with some tobacco in the mix.
hippietrhggr
Glandeuse Pinéale
- Inscrit
- 31/1/08
- Messages
- 214
GOD there is one thing i have to say that is false. u say weed that u eat doesnt get you high. unless it has hash. well then what do u think is hash? hash is just pure thc crystaks smashed together under high pressure for a time. and hash oil is just the thc in liquid. so thus u are saying eating thc or maryjane gets u high.
hippietrhggr
Glandeuse Pinéale
- Inscrit
- 31/1/08
- Messages
- 214
hmm i hve to say the difference between a pipe and joint is almost nothing well a joint has paper wich normally has been bleached white. and then pipes may contain like metal like aluminum and thay is inhaled when you smoke. a bong hit cleans the smoke coolls it and makes fatter hits. so really everything is eqaul when you think about it.
BrainEater
Banni
- Inscrit
- 21/7/07
- Messages
- 5 922
hippietrhggr a dit:
i can confirm that! it definately gets you high... be it weed or hash... although i only tried it with weed, cuz it's easier to use. :weedman:
also i think it you smoke a bong slow, the smoke doesn't get as hot as it is first being gathered in the bowl.... i mostly do it like that... inhale/smoke quite slowly but exhale fast, as THC is said to be absorded almost instantly.
also it is true that the bong filters THC out as well? :? so a joint gets you higher but is also worse for health??
Peace!
hippietrhggr
Glandeuse Pinéale
- Inscrit
- 31/1/08
- Messages
- 214
a bong does filter out some thc but really it doesnt matter how u smoke it. u will still get as high. bongs = fat hits joints= sometimes fat hits but cant always cuz its to hot but a bong is healthier because the smoke is cooler and there is some tar gone so its less harsh on the lungs.
GOD
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14/1/06
- Messages
- 14 944
buffachino
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 7/6/07
- Messages
- 1 452
Its all relative to the amount smoked, potency, method and efficiency of transfer, and to some degree the device.
In the end, the loss of cannabinoids from the slipstream (evaporation) of a pure joint compensates for its more efficient transfer rate, which although marginally better than a water-pipe, is equivalent if not less effective because of this ambient loss, simply because of the vacuum produced by smoking a bong, although this in effect generates more harmful tars.
So smoke more potent cannabis, smoke less (however you smoke), and for god’s sake, get a vaporiser and make some oil!
In the end, the loss of cannabinoids from the slipstream (evaporation) of a pure joint compensates for its more efficient transfer rate, which although marginally better than a water-pipe, is equivalent if not less effective because of this ambient loss, simply because of the vacuum produced by smoking a bong, although this in effect generates more harmful tars.
So smoke more potent cannabis, smoke less (however you smoke), and for god’s sake, get a vaporiser and make some oil!
